Tag: free speech

Three Debates Americans Have Had For 250 Years

George Washington rode west from Philadelphia in command of 13,000 troops on a mission that would test his leadership unlike any previous campaign.

These men were not soldiers in the Continental Army. They were citizen militiamen—forerunners of the National Guard—called up from Virginia, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and New Jersey. And Washington was no longer simply a general. He was president of the United States.

The year was 1794, and Washington had made one of the most fateful decisions of his presidency: to use armed force against fellow Americans.

Congress, desperate for revenue to pay war debts, had enacted a tax on whiskey. Grain farmers in Western Pennsylvania saw the tax as immoral and unjust.

Protestors attacked revenue agents, destroyed the property of tax-paying farmers, and fired shots that killed a local militiaman.

Growing bolder, they fashioned banners on “liberty poles” with slogans like “Equal Taxation and no Excise” and “Liberty or Death.”

For two years, Washington searched for a peaceful resolution. But when 5,000 rebels gathered outside Pittsburgh, vowing to take the city, he knew the time for action had come.

In the end, the Whiskey Rebellion was anticlimactic, resulting in no further violence.

Yet more than 200 years later, Americans still strenuously disagree on basic questions of government.

When is a president justified in mobilizing the National Guard? At what point does a protest become an insurrection? What counts as free speech?

Some fundamental issues were settled at the nation’s founding, a panel of scholars told The Epoch Times. But more were left unsettled. And Americans continue to debate those same issues today.

Keep reading

Farage Referred for Potential Prosecution over Manchester Airport Comments: Report

Reform UK leader Nigel Farage has been referred for potential prosecution over his public critiques of the British justice system amid the controversial Manchester Airport trial.

On Friday, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) said that it would not be seeking a third re-trial against Muhammad Amaad, 26, and Mohammed Fahir Amaaz, 21, over the alleged assault of Police Constable Zachary Marsden at Manchester Airport in July 2024, after two juries failed to come to a verdict. Amaaz was previously convicted of assaulting two female officers during the same incident, however.

The altercation initially sparked uproar after selectively edited footage was leaked to the press of PC Marsden apparently kicking one of the accused in the head. Further footage was later published, appearing to show a police woman having her nose broken during the incident, undercutting the initial public narrative, which had sparked unrest in the local Islamic community.

After months of public pressure, including Reform UK hiring attorneys to launch a private prosecution against the two brothers, the CPS charged Amaad and Amaaz over the incident.

However, the nearly five months taken before any prosecution, and the contrasting swift and unrelenting crackdown against the riots following the murder of three young girls at a Taylor Swift dance party in Southport, sparked accusations of unequal justice.

Among those making the critique were Nigel Farage, who said at the time that there was a “system of two-tier policing, under two-tier justice, under two-tier Keir.”

“You only have to look at the reluctance to prosecute those violent thugs in Manchester Airport who beat up the police officers,” he added. “It took months and months for any prosecution to be brought, and I suspect the reason that it happened is because Reform said if they didn’t, we would take out our own private prosecution.”

For such public comments, Judge Neil Flewitt KC referred Mr Farage to Attorney General Lord Hermer for potential criminal prosecution, claiming the statements may have amounted to contempt of court.

“I took the view that the observation made by Nigel Farage was potentially a contempt of court as it implied the guilt of the defendants,” Judge Flewitt wrote, according to The Telegraph.

“As Nigel Farage is a well-known politician with a considerable following and whose public utterances attract a lot of attention, I decided to refer the matter to the Attorney General so that he could consider whether there should be a prosecution for contempt of court.”

However, the judge said that he did not believe that the Reform chief’s comments would “adversely affect the fairness of the trial”.

Responding to reports of the prosecution referral, Mr Farage said on Friday: “It’s quite clear that our judiciary is in an even worse state than I imagined. The politicisation of the courts will end under a Reform government.”

Reform UK shadow Home Secretary Zia Yusuf accused Judge Flewitt of presiding over a “historic miscarriage of justice” in the Manchester Airport trial and said that a Reform government would remove “this unfit judge from office”.

The judge said in his written judgment that Mr Farage’s intervention, “however unwelcome, would not adversely affect the fairness of the trial”.

Keep reading

Belgian Remigration Activist Convicted of “Hate Speech” Over Factual Lecture on Migration, US State Slams Ruling

A controversial court ruling in Belgium is igniting outrage across Europe, after nationalist activist Dries Van Langenhove was convicted for delivering a lecture that cited crime statistics and criticized the impact of mass immigration—raising fresh concerns about the future of free speech on the continent.

The 33-year-old former member of parliament was found guilty by a Leuven court of “incitement to hatred” and “dissemination of ideas,” following a speech at KU Leuven in early 2024. Critics say the ruling sends a chilling message: even fact-based arguments can now be criminalized if they challenge the prevailing narrative.

Van Langenhove was fined €4,000 (approximately $4,300), adding to a growing list of legal penalties he has faced in recent years. He had previously been sentenced over content posted by others in a private group chat—an outcome his supporters say underscores a broader crackdown on dissent.

At the center of the case was a two-hour lecture that moved beyond its original topic to address migration, crime, and societal change. The speech touched on issues that millions of Europeans are increasingly concerned about—but which are often treated as taboo in official discourse.

Van Langenhove argued that mass immigration is linked to rising crime, housing shortages, and growing strain on public services. These claims, backed by statistics, formed the basis of the charges against him.

He also challenged the dominant explanation of inequality. Rather than accepting structural racism as the sole cause, he argued that differences between groups play a role—an argument widely debated but increasingly restricted in public forums.

“People are not equal, animals are not equal, plants are not equal,” he said during the lecture. The statement was seized upon by the court as evidence of wrongdoing.
Judges acknowledged that his statements were based on data and statistics. However, they ruled that presenting such facts in a way that could create a “hostile atmosphere” was sufficient to justify a conviction.

Crucially, the court made clear that direct incitement to violence was not required. It was enough, they argued, that speech could lead to a general sense of “intolerance.”

That standard, for critics, effectively dismantles meaningful free speech. It allows authorities to punish opinions based not on their truth, but on how they are perceived.

The ruling has reignited comparisons with the United States. Under the First Amendment, even controversial or offensive speech is protected unless it directly incites violence.

The U.S. Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy, Sarah B. Rogers, chimed in on the ruling, warning that policymakers worried about the rise of the so-called “far right” should stop criminalizing accurate, data-driven political speech about mass migration — as the Belgian court’s ruling against Dries Van Langenhove explicitly does. She argued that such prosecutions simply hand a monopoly on these issues to people willing to be labeled “racist,” giving them sole ownership of arguments that large segments of the public see as important and true.

Keep reading

The Democracy Fund to testify before Senate: Bill C-9 threatens free speech & religious liberty

TDF will appear before the Senate of Canada to warn that Bill C-9 threatens freedom of expression, removes protections for religious speech, and creates sweeping new hate-related offences despite existing laws already addressing such conduct.

OTTAWA: Tomorrow, on Thursday, May 28, 2026, Mark Joseph, Executive Director of The Democracy Fund, will testify before the Senate of Canada on Bill C-9, the “Combatting Hate Act.”

TDF argues that Bill C-9 is unnecessary and dangerously overbroad. The legislation would:

  • Criminalize the display of additional symbols under s. 319, even though existing Criminal Code provisions already address such conduct
  • Eliminate the religious defence under s. 319(3)(b) and (3.1), potentially exposing religious teachings on marriage, sexuality, morality, and scripture to criminal prosecution
  • Create a sweeping new stand-alone “hate-motivated offence” that turns any violation of the Criminal Code or any other Act of Parliament into a serious crime if “motivated by hatred.”
  • Add redundant intimidation and obstruction offences already covered by existing mischief, disturbance, and intimidation laws.

“Bill C-9 represents a major expansion of state power over speech and conduct,” said Mark Joseph, Executive Director of The Democracy Fund. “By removing the religious defence, it will criminalize the public expression of sincerely held religious views believed by millions of Canadians. The new hate-motivated offence will criminalize minor conduct and invite prosecutorial overreach despite existing laws already punishing such crimes. This Bill will not reduce social conflict; it will chill debate, strain judicial resources, and undermine Charter Rights.”

You can read TDF’s brief by clicking here.

Keep reading

Hawaii To Pay Up After Trying to Criminalize Political Memes

Hawaii has agreed to pay $118,237.47 in attorney’s fees and costs to The Babylon Bee and local activist Dawn O’Brien, closing the books on a failed attempt to make some political satire a criminal act.

The state chose not to appeal a January ruling that struck down its so-called deepfake law, Act 191, as facially unconstitutional. It tried to ban speech. It lost. Now, taxpayers are covering the bill.

The settlement comes with an unusual wrinkle. Hawaii can’t actually pay yet. The agreement is contingent on the state legislature appropriating the funds during its next session, which runs from January to May 2027. If the legislature doesn’t approve the money by September 1, 2027, the Bee and O’Brien retain the right to file a formal motion for attorney’s fees, meaning the case would reopen and the final number could climb.

Act 191, signed by Governor Josh Green in July 2024, banned the distribution of “materially deceptive media” during election seasons if it risked “harming the reputation or electoral prospects of a candidate” or “changing the voting behavior of voters.”

The only escape for satirists was to slap joke-killing disclaimers on their content, disclaimers that had to appear throughout the entirety of a video and be printed in letters as large as any other text on screen. Violations carried fines, civil lawsuits, and jail time.

The law didn’t require anyone to actually be harmed or deceived. It punished speech based on a speculative “risk” of harm, a standard so vague that the person posting had no reliable way to know whether they were complying. US District Judge Shanlyn Park found that the law “muddies the line between compliance and noncompliance by forcing speakers to base their conduct on their own risk assessment, rather than on clear, objective standards.”

She noted the law created an “inherently subjective assessment for enforcement agencies” that “could conceivably lead to discretionary and targeted enforcement that discriminates based on viewpoint.”

Hawaii argued the law was needed to protect election integrity. Park acknowledged that interest but found the state couldn’t show it had chosen the least restrictive means.

Hawaii’s own expert agreed that digital literacy education would work, objecting only that it “would require a larger investment of resources” compared to a ban. Park cited the Supreme Court: “The First Amendment does not permit the State to sacrifice speech for efficiency.”

ADF legal counsel Mathew Hoffmann said: “Hawaii’s war against political memes and satire has come to an end, thankfully. The First Amendment doesn’t allow any state to choose what political speech is acceptable and censor speech in the name of ‘misinformation.’ That censorship is both undemocratic and unnecessary.”

Hawaii follows California, which lost a similar fight against the Bee. Minnesota’s version is still being litigated before the full 8th Circuit.

Keep reading

Texas Woman Arrested for Facebook Post About Town Water Quality

Jennifer Combs had never gotten so much as a speeding ticket. On May 8, police in Trinidad, Texas, arrested her on a state jail felony charge for writing a Facebook post about the town’s water supply.

The post said residents had been hospitalized due to bacteria in the water. The city says that claim was false. So they sent cops to her door.

The charge is felony false alarm or report under Texas Penal Code § 42.06, a statute designed for people who call in fake bomb threats or fabricate emergencies. Trinidad’s police chief and local officials decided it also applies to a woman who ran a community Facebook page and relayed what neighbors told her about getting sick.

Combs’ post, published on her “Southern Belle Watch” account, read in part: “We have received reports that some citizens have been hospitalized due to bacteria in the water. This is a serious public health concern that deserves immediate attention. If your water looks discolored, contains sediment, has a strong odor, or you have experienced related health issues, please send us a message. We are gathering information and reporting findings to the state.”

That post got her a night in the Navarro County Justice Center. She has since filed a federal lawsuit alleging the arrest was “an act of deliberate political retaliation.”

We obtained a copy of the lawsuit for you here.

The water is brown. The city admits it.

Trinidad, a small city in Henderson County about an hour southeast of Dallas, has a water problem that nobody disputes.

Keep reading

Canada’s Military Punished Whistleblowers Who Flagged Illegal COVID Speech Monitoring

The Canadian Armed Forces reprimanded soldiers who warned that an order to spy on citizens during COVID-19 could violate intelligence-gathering rules. The soldiers were right. The military punished them anyway.

Internal records and emails obtained by CBC News show that on March 11, 2020, a team called Joint Operational Effects (JOE) was ordered to create anonymous social media accounts and scour the internet for information about Canadians.

Under the direction of Col. Chris Henderson, the team produced dozens of reports between March 19 and June 5, tracking what the federal Conservative, NDP, and Bloc Québécois parties were saying about the pandemic.

The Canadian military was monitoring opposition political parties using anonymous accounts created specifically for surveillance.

At least two JOE team members pushed back. They emailed their chain of command, warning that creating anonymous accounts without authorization, while working from home on personal computers, could breach intelligence directives.

One soldier wrote to Maj. John Zwicewicz on March 12, 2020: “Given the sensitivity around social media and military use I have concerns about this.”

They added: “My concern is that by creating these accounts without following proper procedure would come close to, or cross the line set out in the policy.” Another asked to go into the office because they felt it “represented a serious risk” to do the work at home.

Zwicewicz claimed a legal adviser had approved the activities and ordered the group to “cease barrack room lawyering” and get back to work. The team was formally reprimanded more than a week after raising concerns. A source told CBC News that within months, some members quit or were medically released.

The people who raised alarms about potentially illegal surveillance of Canadian citizens got punished. The people who ordered the surveillance kept their positions.

Keep reading

Tennessee man jailed for Charlie Kirk meme wins $835,000 settlement

Larry Bushart, a 61-year-old retired police officer, was arrested in September after sharing memes on Facebook about the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk. Tennessee officials have now agreed to pay $835,000 to settle the lawsuit filed by Bushart against Perry County, its sheriff, and the investigator who obtained the arrest warrant.

Bushart’s case drew national attention because, while many people across the U.S. reportedly lost jobs over social media posts about Kirk’s death, his was a rare case where online speech led to criminal prosecution. Authorities later dropped the felony charge against him in October.

The post that prompted Bushart’s arrest featured President Donald Trump and the words “We have to get over it,” referencing a remark made in 2024 after a school shooting at Perry High School in Iowa. AP reported that the meme was posted with the caption: “This seems relevant today…”

Perry County Sheriff Nick Weems said last year that most of Bushart’s posts were lawful free speech, but claimed residents were alarmed by the school shooting reference because there is also a Perry County High School in Tennessee. However, Weems also said he knew the meme referred to the Iowa school shooting.

“Investigators believe Bushart was fully aware of the fear his post would cause and intentionally sought to create hysteria within the community,” Weems said in a statement to The Tennessean last year.

Keep reading

X Agrees to Review Illegal “Hate” Within 48 Hours Under UK Online Safety Act

X has agreed to process the vast majority of content flagged as illegal “hate” under the UK’s Online Safety Act within 48 hours, giving Ofcom, Britain’s speech regulator, a significant new enforcement win.

The platform committed to “review and assess UK suspected illegal terrorist and “hate” content reported through its dedicated UK illegal content reporting tool on average within 24 hours of it being reported, to be calculated as a mean” and to “review and assess at least 85% of UK suspected illegal terrorist and hate content reported through its dedicated UK illegal content reporting tool within a maximum of 48 hours.”

The deal is a notable reversal for a platform that, less than a year ago, publicly accused Ofcom of taking a “heavy-handed approach” and warned that the Online Safety Act was “seriously infringing” on free expression.

X’s August 2025 statement, titled “What Happens When Oversight Becomes Overreach,” called out regulators by name and argued that the law amounted to a “conscientious decision to increase censorship in the name of ‘online safety.’” That language is gone now. What’s left is a compliance agreement with specific performance targets and a 12-month reporting obligation.

The commitments go beyond speed of review. X also agreed to block access to accounts in the UK if they are reported for “posting UK illegal terrorist content” and deemed to be “operated by or on behalf of a terrorist organisation proscribed in the UK.”

The platform will share quarterly performance data with Ofcom so the regulator can audit compliance. And following complaints from organizations that couldn’t tell whether X had received or acted on their reports, X agreed to “engage with experts regarding reporting systems for illegal hate and terror content.”

Who those experts are tells you something about the direction of travel. Ofcom’s own press release names the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) as one of the organizations it worked with to “gather evidence about suspected illegal terrorist content and illegal hate speech online.”

The CCDH is a pro-censorship campaign group co-founded in 2018 by Imran Ahmed and Morgan McSweeney, who went on to become UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s chief of staff.

McSweeney stepped down from CCDH’s board two days after Starmer became Labour leader. The organization maintains close ties to the current government and has stated that its goal was to “kill Musk’s Twitter,” according to leaked internal documents reported by Matt Taibbi and Paul Thacker.

Ahmed himself was sanctioned by the US State Department in December 2025 over concerns that his organization had led “organized efforts to coerce American platforms to censor, demonetize, and suppress American viewpoints.” A federal court blocked his deportation with a temporary restraining order.

This is the organization Ofcom chose to help build the evidence base for pressuring X into compliance. Ahmed, for his part, welcomed the deal. Speaking to POLITICO, he said CCDH will be “watching closely to ensure this results in meaningful action, not just words.”

Keep reading

Ofcom and the Fantasy of Global Speech Control

Ofcom appears to believe that a website is a kind of television channel. This would explain a lot about what happened on Wednesday, when Britain’s speech regulator fined an American mental health and suicide discussion forum £950,000 ($1.3 million) for hosting speech that is legal in America, on servers in America, operated by Americans.

The site had already blocked British visitors from accessing it, voluntarily, as a gesture of goodwill, despite having no legal obligation to do so and despite Ofcom having no jurisdiction to demand it. Ofcom fined it anyway. The fine is unenforceable.

The site owes Ofcom nothing under American law. And even if the site had never blocked a single British visitor, Ofcom’s case would still make no sense, because a British regulator cannot fine an American citizen for legal American speech on an American server any more than the French postal service can fine you for what you write in your own diary.

Ofcom is the Office of Communications, the British government’s speech regulator. Americans don’t really have an equivalent because most Americans would never stand for one. The closest thing is the FCC, except imagine the FCC could also decide what you’re allowed to say on the internet and fine you if it disapproves.

Under the notorious Online Safety Act, passed in 2023, Ofcom gained the power to decide what speech is permissible online and to fine platforms that host speech the UK government doesn’t like.

That includes speech that is perfectly legal everywhere else on earth. It is, when you think about it for more than four seconds, absolutely mad.

Ofcom launched on December 29, 2003, stitched together from five separate regulators: the Broadcasting Standards Commission, the Independent Television Commission, the Office of Telecommunications, the Radio Authority, and the Radiocommunications Agency.

They all dealt with broadcasting, telecoms, or spectrum. They regulated transmitters, phone lines, and radio frequencies, all of which used publicly owned spectrum and publicly funded infrastructure to push content into British living rooms.

The airwaves belonged to the public. The transmitters were built with public money. If you were using national resources to broadcast to a national audience, it made sense that a national regulator got to set some terms. None of these five organizations were designed to have opinions about what a foreigner writes on a computer in Virginia.

The confusion starts with Ofcom not understanding what a website actually is.

A website does not push anything. Content sits on a server. A visitor actively goes to it and requests it. The data crosses borders only because someone on the other end typed in the URL. Website users are called “visitors” and not “viewers” for exactly this reason. They go to the site. The site does not come to them.

This is not a complicated distinction. A reasonably bright nine-year-old could grasp it over breakfast. Ofcom, apparently, cannot.

The regulator is treating a website in Virginia as though it were a transmitter on a hill in Surrey and claiming jurisdiction over the server rather than the person visiting it. It’s like fining an American for not stopping British citizens from mailing letters to them.

Keep reading